Best Feminist Blog of 2008

Posted: December 14, 2008 by John Klein in results

As selected by Canadian Blog Award voters, here are the rankings for:

Best Feminist Blog

1. Shameless 94    33.94%


2. Choice For Childcare 81    29.24%


3. Broadsides by Antonia Zerbisias 45    16.25%


4. Anti-Choice Is Anti-Awesome 34    12.27%

5. April Reign 23    8.3%
Total votes 277

This category replaced last year’s unpopular “Best Activist Blog” category, so Shameless is the first winner for this category in the Canadian Blog Awards. They aren’t a stranger to blog award success, having won last year’s Canadian F-word Blog Awards as well. Those awards inspired the CBAs to add this category for 2008.

Congratulations to all of the finalists.

  1. M@ says:

    I didn’t vote for this category because JJ was unfairly eliminated from it. Not to take anything away from the winner, but the whole category was tainted by this ridiculous exclusion.

    I hope you do better next year.

  2. balbulican says:

    I wonder if you would invite the independent expert who declared “Choice for Childcare” a “feminist” blog and decided JJ was ineligible to explain his/her rationale? Seriously, now that it’s over?

  3. da wolfe says:

    I can’t claim independence, since I nominated her but… allow me.

  4. bal,
    I don’t know about JJ, please explain.

    Also I don’t deem myself a feminist but whoever nominated me did.

    I believe in equality for everyone not just women. Also I believe in equal rights, not one group getting more than others.

    My stand is to protect children not the bureaucracy.

  5. balbulican says:


    It’s pretty simple. You’re not a feminist. If I may take the liberty of quoting you: “I am no feminist”. End of story.

    That’s fine. But JJ IS a feminist.

  6. balbulican says:

    Wolfe: that’s a cute comic book rendering of an uninformed conservative’s vision of feminism. As a contribution to an adult discussion of what feminism is and isn’t, it’s not helpful.

  7. da wolfe says:

    I’m sorry it bothers you. That makes two of us.

    I’ll continue with my comic renderings, because I think it’s important. For me the comment Sandy of Crux of the Matter made when she was nominated was a further confirmation that Sara deserved to be nominated:

    “This nomination is a surprise to me but as a woman who simply did what she wanted to, including balance family and career, I suppose I am a feminist — in the broad sense of the term (no pun intended).

    Actually, I can remember how ticked off I was years ago when I wasn’t considered a feminist simply because I was a pro-life conservative, albeit one who also believed in gender equality — including SSM.

    However, as someone who came of age in the 1960’s, I view it simply as a matter of equality, about choice, the freedom to do what you want — and not just for women but for men as well.

    In other words, a woman can be a feminist, whether she likes to hunt moose, get a Ph.D or be a fulltime mom, or all of the above.

    So, I will have some good company here.

    This should be fun. Again, thanks Jim, whoever and wherever you are.”

    She didn’t make the cut and for good reason, since she blogs more about politics in general. I’ve never read JJ’s blog so I don’t know. What I do know is that I’m confident that including Choice for Childcare in this category is not freeping the poll or being anti-feminist but adding to feminism.

  8. I had requested I be removed from the category because I *am* a feminist. So, if anyone voted for me the results are wrong. Go figure.

    I think the organizers forgot about the *thing* about feminism: the personal is political and the political is personal.

  9. matttbastard says:

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is”, said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

  10. Antonia says:

    The whole process was completely discredited from the start, although I am happy Shameless won the voting contest and I thank everybody who voted for me.

    That said, and I posit this as someone who has tangled with Landriault via email, when she says ”I don’t deem myself a feminist …
    I believe in equality for everyone not just women. Also I believe in equal rights, not one group getting more than others” she betrays an utter ignorance of what feminism is.

    Feminism is about equality for everyone. There is no such thing as one group getting ”more” equality or equal rights than others. It is impossible.

    Statements like hers show that she is anything but a feminist.

    I know you guys tried to be inclusive this year but you blew it.

  11. Gabriel... says:

    Discredited? Get over yourselves. It’s a cartoon smiling beaver handed to bloggers by bloggers and organized by a group of volunteers.

  12. da wolfe says:

    I thought I had braced myself for the reaction there might be, but not really. May I never be called reactionary by a liberal again ; ) (kidding!)

    I should explain re: the explanation I gave on my blog, that I didn’t mean to offer a different or opposing view of feminism, but to argue that it ought to include what I talked about and what I think Sara’s blog stands for. People like to bring up hunting moose in that context – referencing Sarah Palin. And in my view the treatment of Palin revealed that feminism – as it stands, and to a certain degree – does mean something political before meaning being about women. I recall Balbulican’s astonishment that her critics were being called sexist. I was at least as astonished… that I was genuinely interpreting some of their criticism as sexist. As a conservative I was so used to having my politics associated with being anti-woman that I had concluded that sexism was a spent force and now was all about political advantage. Suddenly the most popular American governor, who I viewed as having more experience than Obama and who was running for the essentially ceremonial post of vice president was being defined – and often by feminists – by having been in a beauty pageant and having a large brood. It was a shock to me and I couldn’t see it in any way but as having sexist overtones. What man in a similar situation would be negatively defined as just a jock if he’d been a good high school quarterback?

    I think it would be a good thing if feminism fought sexism regardless of politics and I guess that’s the point to this. It’s not about discrediting feminism, at least not to me.

  13. skdadl says:

    I believe in equality for everyone not just women.

    Um … before we even get to feminism, that is a totally illogical sentence — it has no possible meaning. It is gibberish.

    Like balbulican (and others, I’m sure), I’d like to hear from the supposed independent expert with all those courses in women’s studies under her belt — not exactly the best way to demonstrate your feminist bona fides, but certainly heavy with pretention that maybe needs to be tested in a public debate with some feminists who aren’t afraid of the very term.

  14. balbulican says:

    “a woman can be a feminist, whether she likes to hunt moose, get a Ph.D or be a fulltime mom, or all of the above. ”

    Absolutely. Who said any different, and what does any of that have to do with feminism?

    But see, Wolfe, you seem to have missed the bit where your nominee said “I AM NOT A FEMINIST.”

  15. balbulican says:

    “I recall Balbulican’s astonishment that her critics were being called sexist.”

    Actually, Balbulican was astonished that her critics were being called “misongynist”. Not the same thing.

    I didn’t criticize Palin because she’s a woman. I criticized her because she was an inexperienced, not very bright political hack with lots of ideas I disagree with.

  16. hysperia says:

    I was nominated in the Best Feminist Blog category, though I didn’t make the cut to the finals. When I came here to check out my nomination – that was the first I’d heard about this controversy. I didn’t say anything at the time, but I’m sure going to do that now.

    That thing about not believing in equal rights for women only, but equality for everyone – well, hell, if you agree with equality for women, what you’re saying is that men and women should be equal with regard to certain things – whatever it is that’s included as important. If women are equal to men in those defined ways, then ALL people are equal. To say you believe in equal rights for women is an inclusive statement – no one is excluded; to be equal TO means you have to be equal to SOMEBODY – MEN. ALL in, nobody’s excluded. To make the argument as it’s made by Sara is nothing if not a signal that the person sees no problem with respect to women’s equality and makes her, as she says, NO FEMINIST. She doesn’t see a PROBLEM for gawd sakes! She doesn’t call herself a feminist, she doesn’t want to be one and that’s all FINE because she isn’t one and ought not to be mistaken for one.

    As far as I’m concerned, feminists can definitely hunt for moose. Go for it, feminists. That’s NOT why I reject, completely, totally and absolutely, the notion that Sarah Palin is or was ever a feminist. If a bunch of Conservative women who have bought in to the notion that you can be a powerful woman and still be controlled by male standards of behaviour related to right-wing Christian or any-other-kind-of-religious-or-political-wingnuttery, want to call themselves feminists for the purely opportunist notion of what they can get out of it, then damn well go ahead and I’ll call myself a CHRISTIAN who doesn’t believe in god or jesus christ. I’m sure real Christians won’t give a damn if I win the best Canadian CHRISTIAN blog, right?

    I was honoured to be included as a feminist nominee. I’m very sorry that a REAL feminist got left out in favour of someone who doesn’t even want to claim the description. I hope someone who understands the definition of feminism is part of the nominating process next year. This year made NO SENSE AT ALL and was, in fact, a profound insult to feminists.

    I want to add that, though I was included as a “feminist blogger” and I am most certainly a feminist, my blog posts are NOT about feminist issues only, or at least arguably not, though I tend to draw the definition quite widely, though not as absurdly widely as was done here. So the excuse that JJ’s posts were not exclusively feminist doesn’t work either.

  17. da wolfe says:

    Did someone say something about having an adult discussion?

    “If a bunch of Conservative women who have bought in to the notion that you can be a powerful woman and still be controlled by male standards of behaviour” – hysperia

    It’s so interesting that you make this point because my sense of the difference in perception between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin is that Clinton has bought into what you might call male standards of behavior. It seems to be generally accepted that Clinton lost to Obama because she tacked away from a pacifistic stance on the war too early. She was positioning herself for the presidential election itself and to do so she took on such an agressive attitude towards the war on terrror that the neoconservatives – and I speak as someone who has usually agreed with them – dedicated to the wars were shocked and sincerely impressed. My sense is that Hillary – who claimed landing in Bosnia under sniper fire as foreign policy cred which is really not distinguishable from Palin’s claim that living near Russia gave her foriegn policy chops – is seen as a more credible candidate because she’s “got balls”. That is literally what a lot of people have said about her. It became a favorite little joke of Republicans to say Hillary had more balls than Obama.

    Meanwhile, what seemed to really damage the sense of trust as a leader people had for Palin was that she had so many kids and was in a beauty pageant. That unlike Hillary, she was feminine. I agree with Balbulican that she was ultimately a poor choice, but before I came to share that view I noticed that although I competely opposed Obama and considered her as or more qualified I felt more trust in him. I realized that the likeliest explanation was an instinct to trust a man or someone “manly” as a leader.

    This is what makes me think that feminism at a certain level became about becoming “manly” and led some feminists to reject mere stay-at-homes more than male chauvanists ever did and that to me this is manifested in how some feminists rejected Palin because she does not buy into needing to stick to male standards of behaviour to succeed.

    But to be frank, why should I try to engage this as though it was reasonable? This is childish bullying. What an unthinking red-herring to say the entire thing is a wash because JJ did not make the poll. If she had I submit that Choice for Childcare would have won with just a few of the votes for shameless going to JJ.

    Would you all have been civil about it then? Bring up the fact that Sara – who didn’t ask for this thank you very much, doesn’t consider herself a feminist, although she was honoured to have been nominated. Maybe it’s my point that she ought to – or at least not be so petulantly excluded. Maybe it’s my point that telling someone who advocates for the right of women to be treated equally by the government regardless of whether they choose to raise kids or to do “real work” that they are absolutely not a feminist simply reveals that the definition of feminism has become sadly narrow to some people.

  18. hysperia says:

    Interesting. I see nothing bullying in the comments made here. Deep disagreement, yes.

    Sarah Palin DID, in fact, call herself a feminist, as did other Republicans. She is a member of “Feminists For Life”, an anti-abortion group.

    It is not “petulant” to “exclude” Palin. It is a matter of deep political importance to feminists and to feminism. She excluded herself. And it is not the response of a feminist to accuse women (and others) who are expressing their opinions of “bullying”. But I’d say that calling them “petulant” is sexist.

    I know that some feminists have been patronising of women who work at home doing child-rearing and that’s an unfortunate outcome related to a valuable critique of women’s unpaid labour in the home. I don’t agree with that, nor does any feminist I care to associate with. I I haven’t heard anyone argue that here and I wouldn’t respect an argument that a woman should be “excluded” from the feminist movement because she’s saying that women who raise kids should be treated equally. The fight for that equality is simply one of feminism’s central tenets.

    There is deep misunderstanding about this on your part. The problem that I have with the award going to “Choice for Childcare” is that her blog is not specifically feminist AT ALL, and she doesn’t identify as a feminist. I think the work that she does is good and valuable and this mess is not her fault. The issue of whether JJ would have won is also not the point – the point is that she was excluded altogether. None of this was in her control either. She’s been very gracious about it.

    It’s the PROCESS, you see. And if there’s one thing that feminists have brought to the fore of consciousness, it’s that processes must be fair and must be seen to be fair. This one just wasn’t.

  19. matttbastard says:

    da wolfe: If a blog nominated in (eg) The Best Disability Category was not actually written by a person with a disability, would we be having a similar debate regarding semantics? What about the Best LGBT Blog category featuring a nominee who identifies as straight (and primarily writes about the evils of homosexuality)?

    The point isn’t how ‘narrow’ our definition of feminism is, but the fact that your chosen nominee rejects the label of feminism.


    I don’t begrudge you for initially tendering the nomination–the responsibility lies with the CBA operators for (inexplicably) refusing to remove what is quite obviously an ineligible nomination (again, because the nominee said outright that she’s, y’know, not a feminist).

    And it’s not like disqualifying an ineligible candidate was unprecedented this year. Several nominees who made it into the first round weren’t actually Canadian citizens. When this was pointed out, the operators swiftly removed the ineligible nominees from contention–no debate over what ‘citizenship’ means, no hiding behind the authority of some anonymous 3rd party ‘expert’.

    So what’s the difference in this instance?

  20. skdadl says:

    What part of a simple English sentence like “I am no feminist” do you not understand, da wolfe.

    Interesting, too, that you cannot discuss women political candidates outside of their marked status as women. I could write pages about Sarah Palin and her disastrous campaign without ever once assessing her femininity, mainly because the campaign was such a wreck, if a socially and politically interesting wreck. You apparently cannot do that.

    And that’s one of the reasons feminists get uppity, Charlie Brown.

  21. balbulican says:

    Da Wolfe, once again: to repeat what I’ve asked three times, and skdadl just repeated:

    The author of Choice for Childcare is not a feminist.

    She says so.

    We agree.

    You’re dodging that very, very simple point.

  22. April Reign says:

    Sara who doesn’t believe in feminism, abortion, daycare, or anything else deemed to be choices vital to equality and therefore, whether one personally chooses to use them in ones own life, vital to the very concept of feminism–this person is included in this category?

    the only bit here that was correct was the f but it should have stood for farce.

  23. Toe says:

    As has been said by someone else, the process is extremely important for Feminists. It can’t just be said the process was fair, because it was not seen to be fair. What was the process used to choose the neutral 3rd party? And is this person a woman? How can Feminists judge whether the process of selection was not tainted in some way, transparency is the key.

    BTW, Congrats to Shameless!

  24. JJ says:

    “What an unthinking red-herring to say the entire thing is a wash because JJ did not make the poll. If she had I submit that Choice for Childcare would have won with just a few of the votes for shameless going to JJ.”

    No, ZERO votes would have gone to me because I wouldn’t have made the cut whether Choice for Childcare did or not. This is not about me. It’s about a non-feminist getting weaseled into the feminist blog category, to the exclusion of real feminist blogs who were in the running (which doesn’t include mine).

    What part of “I’m no feminist” is so hard for you to understand?

    I’m no Vlogger — that’s why I wasn’t nominated in the Vlogger category.

    I’m no techie — that’s why I wasn’t nominated in the tech blog category.

    I’m no photographer — that’s why I wasn’t nominated in the photography blog category.

    Okay? Now try “I’m no feminist”… follow the bouncing ball, moron, what comes next?

  25. fern hill says:

    It’s the combination: letting CforC in and booting JJ. One or other could have been a mistake, but both?

    I’m taking bets on whether there will be a feminist category next year. 😉

  26. Dr. Prole says:

    Who was this untouchable feminist credentialed judge? No fair keeping secrets. Who is to blame for this 2nd annual category clusterf**k?

  27. da wolfe says:

    I was afraid that after having used words like “petulant” and “childish bullying” the thread would have really gone off the rails. I feel like I was somewhat justified but not that it’s likely to be helpful, and I’m sorry I did. I hope you’ll find it funny, Balbulican, that I feel like I’ve taken up your style of cajoling moralizing – bringing balance to the blogosforce as a conservative version of how you comment sometimes. I should say to hysperia that I think “petulant” was primarily addressed to Balbulican – who I think is a dude. It’s a word I associate with myself fairly often.

    I have a hard time understanding how deeply this affects feminists like April Reign who view particular issues as essential to achieving equality. In a very ironic twist, considering the topic, I think I was almost being protective – although the main reason I’m upset by some of the reaction is that in nominating Sara I thought it would be all positive and I feel responsible.

    I have trouble understanding the offence too, because I am offended. I’m offended that women like Sandy of Crux of the Matter would be not a feminist because of being pro-life. I’m offended when conservative women are said to be anti-woman and male – especially when some people, who I wouldn’t call feminists even if they think they are, feel comfortable saying that successful conservative women like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin only succeed because of their looks, often in the same breath as putting down their looks. (In particular, I’m thinking of a guy who wrote a letter to the University of Saskatchewan student paper years ago that attacked Coulter as anti-woman, popular only because of her looks and went on to call her a cow with cottage-cheese thighs.) I’m very offended because my perception of Palin’s candidacy is that more than completely disagreeing with her like Balbulican for some it became ok for her to be painted with an image with sexist overtones. skdadl says I’m hung up on her femininity, Charlie Brown. To a degree – and yet mostly in my attempt to not do so – but what I’m really hung up on is people like Heather Mallick who said something in her CBC column about Palin’s “presumption of being a woman”.

    Right or wrong, those are good things to be offended by. I guess what it is to me is that some feminists claim to speak for all women and for a particular outlook or set of policies. To me it can’t be only both. If feminism speaks for women in general it might make sense to think it’s wrong to include someone who doesn’t think of themselves as a feminist but it doesn’t make sense that it’s so outrageous. My belief in nominating Sara was that if feminism can be said to speak for women in general then it can include what she advocates for. So the last thing I’m doing is avoiding the point that Sara doesn’t consider herself feminist. I guess I’m making a case that what she advocates should be included, since the definition of feminism isn’t as easily defined like citizenship.

    I’m sure Kate McMillian doesn’t want me to say that she feels betrayed by feminists, but that is how I read this post about feminism and Margaret Thatcher. It seems that including people like Thatcher or Palin in feminism is unacceptable to a lot of people included in this poll to the point of the Regina Mom telling people not to vote for her because of it or of fern hill guessing that there might not be this category next year. Whatever the CBA people decide, I won’t see it as legitimate either if blogs like ProWomanProLife are categorically excluded unless the category were renamed best liberal feminist blog. I suppose that’s a point to leave with… as to whether a blogger that considered herself feminist like Palin but did not share the things April Reign and others identify as feminist would be acceptable to you. What could be included in feminism to you, perhaps considering that a former editor of Ms. magazine said this about Palin::

    “Look, I am obviously personally pro-choice, and I disagree with McCain and Palin on that and a few other issues… I also happen to believe Sarah Palin supports women’s rights, deeply and passionately.”

    (apparently Palin even supports “equal pay”, which I oppose on what I think could be called feminist grounds although what that means to her specifically isn’t said)

    Is hysperia right to say that the way Choice for Childcare argues for equality could belong in a feminist category, but only if the person considered themselves feminist?

  28. hysperia says:

    OMIGOD I’m not going back to look at my comment because it’s too early in my morning, but if I said anything like Choice for Childcare could be a feminist just by considering herself one, that’s NOT what I meant. Sorry sorry sorry if I said anything like that. I think it’s pretty definitive that CFC doesn’t consider herself a feminist, but it’s more important that what she does simply doesn’t fit within a feminist perspective. As many people have noted with respect to definition, if you don’t “do” feminism, you’re not a feminist.

  29. April Reign says:

    so shorter da wolfe, if you have twat you is feminist.

    got it.

  30. saskboy says:

    “I’m taking bets on whether there will be a feminist category next year.”

    Despite the sabotage attempts from many, it’s likely there will be, albeit with clearer entry rules.

  31. Dr. Prole says:

    Who was the judge?

  32. saskboy says:

    You may or may not get an answer to that, I’ll see if I can find out. Personally I don’t know their name or contact information, and I also don’t think it’s important that others do too. Regardless of who it is, some people are clearly upset by the judgment and results, so what good could come from you knowing, now that it’s finished?

  33. Dr. Prole says:

    It’s called transparency.

  34. saskboy says:

    I think your motives are transparent enough for everyone involved here. Let it go please.

  35. Gabriel... says:

    Yes, dammit, we must have transparency in the procedures in which we receive, or do not receive, an image of a smiling cartoon beaver from a bunch of kind hearted volunteers which we can place in the sidebars of our blogs which may, or may not, be read by literally dozen(x) of people. Get right on that, volunteers who have been kind enough to put this popularity contest thing which will never get our names in the paper or mean a pay upgrade together. We must definitely have transparency. And blood. Don’t forget the blood.

  36. JJ says:

    I should add that I do appreciate the work the CBA volunteers put into this whole thing, particularly this category which for some unknown reason is so irritating to some that they feel the need to compromise it.

    Oh well. *shrugs*

  37. Holly Stick says:

    da wolfe does not believe Sara when she says she is not a feminist. Well, she’s only a woman after all, and nobody payus attention to what wommin say, cuz they get all emoshunal.

    At least Sara understand that feminism is something you can choose to support or not, not just some sort of natural monthly thing. Maybe Sara will figure out from this discussion that feminism does have something to offer her, as a way of dealing with men who are too lazy to look up the definition of feminism (try wiki) .

    By the way, da wolfe, if someone says a woman has balls, he is probably a man who mistakenly thinks he is giving her a compliment. Women don’t think having balls is necessary or desireable.

  38. Dr. Prole says:

    Let it go. Ok, eventually. But I think it was one of you guys. I don’t think there was an “expert”.

  39. saskboy says:

    Granted there’s a bit of trust involved, but I know it wasn’t me, and I’m 99% sure it wasn’t NBCD either, and he found someone he thought would be fair and independent of the CBAs and quite possibly independent from the blogosphere and its infighting/politics.

  40. Sask,

    I didn’t even win, and the others in the category are seriously whining over this.
    That is the problem.

    Antonia & April,

    The same could be said about you two, you do not act like feminists just a bunch of political nutters who cannot see past your own anger.

    I believe in equality…..

  41. If it was the “voice in my head”, then the Feminist category would have been ready on time.

    The judge was somebody who has a minor in Women’s Studies, who doesn’t have a blog, but does read them.

  42. fern hill says:

    Go to Northern BC Dipper’s place for some interesting new information.

  43. da wolfe says:

    Holly – “Women don’t think having balls is necessary or desireable.”

    I think that is what I was saying.

  44. […] cannot include advocating for choice for women in daycare what would that say about feminism? (con-text) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Why I nominated ‘no feminist’ for best […]

  45. Feminism has many branches, and in its first wave got women the vote and the right to own property. In its second wave it got women the right to sit in the Senate, enter corporate boardrooms and get equal pay for work of equal value in the paid work world. But feminism has not achieved full equality yet because those two waves did not yet completely address valuing traditional work women do, i. e. caregiving. The third wave of feminism in the US with Katie Roiphe and Naomi Klein has dared to do that and admit that if a woman wants to be home with the babies and bake cookies any equality movement has to not only respect that choice but also respect the work of childrearing.

    What we are seeing right now is not the ‘backlash’ of the 80s where some women resisted hints they could have paid jobs while mothers and felt being at home was better morally. That backlash was anti-feminist in two ways, one because it made fun of ‘feminists’ who tried to break new ground, but also, sadly, because it criticized women and undermined therefore the sisterhood.

    The new backlash is of those 70s feminists against women at home and it is also a very odd development in an equality movement. The anger in that case is from that small group that has chosen a paid work lifestyle and that has broken ground for equality in that sphere, but that also feels superior to women who chose differently. Its insult of women in the home is actually anti-feminist because again it insults a prefectly valid lifestyle option, insults the intense work involved in care of children and undermines the sisterhood.

    Sara Landriault is a breath of fresh air because without worrying about these labels or pursuing academic theories, turns out to be living the real thing. She has been a mom at home full time, a mom who earns full or part-time outside the home and she has used daycare, grandparent care, dad care and mom care options for her kids. Her blog is an amazing from the heart collection of news items about caregiving but also her gut reaction and economic analysis to how thees stories affect lives in fact. In this analysis she takes sides, yes, but they are for the dignity of choice. She respects those who choose other lifestyles and her advocacy for noncustodial dads, for single moms, for divorced moms is passionate and intense, though she personally is not in any of those situations. She believes in equal rights, and she believes it loudly.

    That is in fact what any liberation movement for equality is about. She is the living breathing real thing.

    What she has uncovered which may be the reason a few are upset, is that some who claim to speak for all women, whether from the religious right or the extreme left, have indeed started to show less than tolerance for others who chose differently.

    When Canada’s official NAC feminist movement started to fund gay women rights over funding support for traditional care roles, it undermined some women. I also have spoken in favor of gay rights and gay marriage but this should not be done by any group mocking those who are more mainstream. NAC also lost contact with the general population of women when it argued only for universal daycare, and no matching funding to the 11 other care locations and styles. To fund kids in daycare is fine but to not parallel fund kids in other locations is not fine. IT is a question again, of equal rights.

    The underdog, the one not getting their piece of the pie, is the one who will speak out or yell out. That does not mean they are offfensive, hysterical or anti-feminist. It means they understand the principle of equal benefit under the law, the principle of free speech and the idea of democracy.

    Sara Landriault has broken new ground for the 3rd wave of women’s rights. She may not call herself a feminist because that term sadly has become kind of damaged, clouded by those who abused it an argued only for one brand of feminism, and insulted other women who did not choose that lifestyle.

    I am told that the word ‘feminist’ is now avoided in most women’s studied circles because of the damage done to the term. It is more common now to speak of women’s rights and equality seeking movements but technically this was what feminism was always meant to be.

    The really sad thing is that in any battle the enemy wins if it can get the other side to turn on itself and implode from within. Any time women are fighting women we have lost sight of the vision and we won’t make much headway when those in power still who are men think we can all be dismissed because we can’t even be clear on what we stand for.

    If you want more info about how I see this playing out as a liberation movement, parallel to the civil rights movement in the US or other great liberations, you may wish to look at my website

    The point is, women will eventually attain full equality. It is sad it has to be a two part struggle now but I guess it does. One is equality with men. The other is equality between women.

    Sara Landriault is already there in her heart. It’s very touching to see.

    Beverley Smith

  46. […] of us have been speculating, humorously or otherwise, about the identity of this “expert”. All we were told is that they had a degree of […]

  47. Dr.Dawg says:

    What a silly debate over the obvious.

    Someone who says she is not a feminist wins 2nd place in the “Best Feminist Blog” category.

    That’s all there is to this.

    An illiterate judge who’s taken a couple of courses in women’s studies will decide, damn it, who a feminist is or isn’t. I’m Caucasian, but I could win, under the same “logic,” “Best African American Blog.” I’m not an American either, but don’t let that stop you. Some “judge” could rule otherwise, in both cases.

    There’s categorical confusion, and then there’s sheer duplicity. I leave it to others to decide what’s in operation here, but I have my own views on the matter.

  48. da wolfe says:

    I nominate KEvron’s last post for… something good.

    Two posts ago I said I was going, but I dropped back in and saw Holly Stick’s comment. I think you’d like this post which was pretty much inspired by what you said holly, or I’d like to know if you agree/disagree – and I’m inviting everyone to this post to answer the burning question of whether stripper-bloggers are disqualified from feminism and my other questions/thoughts on what you’d include in a Best Feminist category if you like. Now I’m gone…

  49. Holly Stick says:

    da wolfe, I wasted a bit of my life reading your post, with its false equivalency and its fetus-fetishizing attitude.

    The false equivalency lies in pretending that having eggs is the same thing as having testicles.

    The fetus-fetishizing attitude is the one that assumes a woman’s identity lies her ability to reproduce; that a woman is valuable mainly as a baby produing machine.
    If you want to learn more about what is wrong with fetus fetishizing, go read this blog by a real feminist:

    and this one by more real feminists:

  50. Holly Stick says:

    Here’s the newer website for

  51. Gabriel... says:

    Do you people not have blogs, or street corners, where you can be screaming this stuff? Voting’s over, the award has been given. Good luck next year.

  52. no worries KEvron you have my vote!

  53. Amanda says:

    Even if the author of a site doesn’t consider herself feminist, if the readers of the site consider the content to be feminist, and perhaps are feminists themselves and recognize the blog’s content to be feminist, it should be included.

    Also. Its a bunch of pixels in the shape of a beaver that we’re arguing about, yes?

    Just wanted to make sure.

  54. […] the “best feminist blog” awards controversy, I am sure we know who qualifies. This entry was posted on Tuesday, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s